such as 'Should everyone in Texas have the right to clean air, safe water, and a healthy environment?' Why even ask that?

That's not outlining policy or anything.

the democrat one is extremely leading when it comes to its phrasing and then lacks the context of why that question is even there or adds things that are barely related

Essentially, the propositions are there to give people a chance to help steer the party

i would say no to almost all of the democrat questions based on lack of context or because there is something in there that i would not want.

Right?

but they have to word it in that sneaky way to get people to say yes to it.

It's scary as fuck to me.

take number 3 for example... the healthcare one...

i live in a country with kinda universal healthcare and i really appreciate that and would not want to get rid of that but the question is so vague without any information how to implement it that i could not say yes to that...

(kinda universal: universal healthcare as a base and private healthcare if you get to a certain income or are self employed)

The dems have been pushing us towards single-payer only healthcare for years.

Also, in the US, Medicare isn't universally accepted, because they bounce checks.

the last one is not something that would happen here

we don't have "one universal" healthcare provider... anyone can choose theirs, they have to accept you and there is a fixed percentage that everyone pays from their income (or it will be paid by the state if you are unemployed)

We all pay medicare regardless.

there is a list of services that every healthcare provider has to provide but they can offer more services either for free or as a paid service (for example "dental" is included but you can get a premium service to get better quality dentures)

Also, the funny thing about #12 on that list, Texas is considered one of the best places to start a business because of our tax system, and the fact that our budget actually comes with a surplus.

number 12 says absolutely nothing

oh, that's on the Democrat one.

'Right to Fair Taxation'.

that could literally mean everyone pays everything they own to the state.

They've been fighting to add a state income tax for years.

the fact that they're calling it a 'right' on here is one of the many points that scares me.

just add it?

without cutting taxes somewhere else?

well, yeah.

okay...

It's our right to be taxed more.

In our state, we pay a sales tax, and a property tax.

In other states, you pay a state income tax, a state sales tax, a state property tax, in addition to the standard Federal income tax.

The system here works, because the money we spend gets taxed anyway, and the money made becomes money spent.

the tax income of the state should be equal the funds needed for the state to do its job - just adding a tax would defeat that purpose if you don't lack funds at the moment.

Well, that's just the thing

they're trying to make the government do more stuff

to me there are very specific things i want the government to do... some will make me sound like a socialist to some people 😄

Also, #11 is troublesome. By 'Workforce solutions', in that context, they're talking about ways of letting illegal immigrants work more jobs without consequences to the employers.

Most illegal immigrants in the United States work for less than minimum wage, though.

number 11 is self defeating. legal immigrants are either already citizens or on a work visa and already have jobs. illegal immigrants are, by definition, not law abiding.

Mmhmm

But see, the worse thing is

If you're in support of Illegal Immigrants working American jobs, there are two possible things wrong with that

first, it could be argued that you're in support of a permanent underclass that can work undesirable jobs for less-than-minimum wage

In which case, the argument for 'undocumented workers' in the modern era is the same argument made for slaves pre civil-war.

OR, if you're for amnesty and open borders, you're inadvertently in support of importing poverty.

open borders... 😒

Anecdotally, after Hurricane Harvey, I began to learn how to install Sheetrock, a service that was vitally important.

i'm all for taking in people from actual war zones... educate them and send them back once the war is over to rebuild their country.

I'm in favor of shutting the border now, but providing everyone who's gainfully employed (and pays taxes despite being illegal, I dunno how the fuck that works) a road to citizenship

I'm not.

but taking in just everyone is not something that will ever work

Because setting that precedent is dangerous.

Anyone that has any criminal record outside of being illegal is sent back, even for something as small as speeding or something.

And it already has precedent, Rye: Machine gun amnesty.

I don't see how the two are related.

Even things like blatantly -stolen- machine guns fell under that amnesty.

Riiiiight, but....

I'm talking belt-feds and M-16s taken out of army depots

mmmhmmm... riiiiiight.... but....

Machine Guns were not always illegal to own.

you are not talking about inanimate objects, you are talking about people with the ability to move around themselves.

however, crossing the border into the US without passport, visa, or citizenship has always been illegal.

So a universal amnesty for people who are gainfully employed, pay taxes and do not have a criminal record, with a very specific cutoff date, is not far beyond a certain level of precedent.

So you're only proposing a ban on assault mexicans.

single-action mexicans can stay.

okay... you announce that, i move in with a friend of mine, he gives me a job and i can become an american...?

(yes that would actually be a possibility for me in that case 😄 )

jokes aside, the point still remains, they didn't just break a law by crossing a border.

To exist in the United States in such a way requires repeated breach of law.

The point I'm making is that if that's the -only- breach of law they've made, and they've contributed to society outside of that, I see no reason other than a borderline spastic level of absolutist interpretation of the law (and justice cannot be absolute) that they should not be given a road to citizenship.

Working in the US without a Visa is also a crime, taxes or no. (Theoretically, everyone pays taxes, anyway.)

Giving a squatter tenancy in a house isn't justice, even if they put up nice curtains.

i mostly see a problem with the practicality

the principle... kind of... but there are multiple principles involved 😄

We're in the situation we're in because we've been lax on our laws. DACA, by the way stands for 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals'. The entire basis of that statement is that action will be taken later on.

Essentially, it bought time for a propaganda war to be fought, to try to fight for sympathy for the plight of the 'Dreamer'.

And I'm not *entirely* unsympathetic, either. But there's no fair way to do this.

Let's say, for instance, we only deport criminals.

The mother has a clean record. The child is in school. The father has a DUI accident that injured someone, while uninsured and unlicensed.

How would your proposed system handle this?

That sucks, good bye daddy.

So now the child grows up in a single-parent home?

you've separated the family unit.

No, I've not, they can move back with him.

I mean, I guess.

I still don't like that the citizenship that our Legal immigrants earned through years of effort is cheapened by a decree of amnesty.

Would this amnesty apply to those who are here on their visa working towards citizenship anyway?

you could start them at the point of an immigrant just coming in with a work visa

but yeah, giving them preferential treatment compared to legal immigrants would be... bad...

I mean, legal immigrants actually have to invest a lot of time and money into immigration

As is the case with most things legal and not

If you're willing to cut corners and do things illegally, you can generally do things easier, cheaper, etc.

Changing laws and requirements due to the already illegal actions of any group typically serves to hurt those who operate legally. Plenty of examples to back that up, as well. Many topical.

Enforcement of existing laws is the only just starting point.

when every country is a shithole, then no one will need to worry about immigration ... i think that is the plan of some people....

And it defeats the purpose of those laws to begin with.

It's like saying, "Eh, there's too many murders going on in Chicago. Better just pardon the whole lot."

I'm in favor of the children of illegal immigrants not being citizens, just like the children of refugees/migrants not being citizens of the countries they were born in, because they're not.

I think in order to be considered a citizen, at least *one* of your parents has to be a legal citizen.